Advertisement

Polar Biology

, Volume 41, Issue 4, pp 743–751 | Cite as

Changes in nesting success and breeding abundance of Spectacled Eiders Somateria fischeri in the Chaun Delta, Chukotka, Russia, 2003–2016

  • Diana V. Solovyeva
  • Sergey L. Vartanyan
  • Morten Frederiksen
  • Anthony D. Fox
Original Paper
  • 90 Downloads

Abstract

The Spectacled Eider Somateria fischeri is a rare sea duck confined to breeding in the Yukon–Kuskokwim Delta and Arctic coasts of Alaska and Russia. Almost nothing is known about its status and breeding biology in the Russian Arctic. Stratified systematic nest searches were conducted annually of Spectacled Eider nests on Ayopechan Island in the Chaun Delta, Arctic Russia during 2003–2016. Mean nest densities were stable during 2003–2009 but declined by 8.0% per annum during 2009–2016. Mean clutch size and annual female survival did not change over the same period, during which time annual nest survival and hatching success declined significantly. A simple three age-class matrix model estimated annual asymptotic population growth rate (λ) using observed fecundity from the beginning (1.1 hatched chick per female, λ = 0.864) and end (0.45 hatched chick per female, λ = 0.828) of the study period. This confirmed that to stabilize this population required three immigrant recruits for every local recruit at the beginning of the study and nine towards the end. Declines in annual nest survival appear correlated with (i) declines in nesting Sabine’s Gulls Xema sabini and Arctic Terns Sterna paradisaea with which nesting Spectacled Eiders associated and may have gained protection from predators, and (ii) marginally significant increases in large gull and mammalian predators at the site. Should current trends in nest density and fecundity continue, the survival of this breeding Spectacled Eider population is in jeopardy.

Keywords

Egg predators Glaucous Gull Hatching success Nest density Nest survival Vega Gull 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The fieldwork on AI was conducted by 2 to 7 volunteers annually to whom we express our warmest gratitude, too many to name here. In 2003–2013, the field work was funded by the Fairbanks Office of the US Fish & Wildlife Service and in 2015–2016 by the Eurasia Department of the US Fish & Wildlife Service. Additional funding was provided by Wrangel Island State Reserve in 2003–2007. We are grateful to Chukotka Mining Co of Kinross Gold Corporation for logistic and transportation support in 2010–2016. Finally, grateful thanks to Tinna Christensen and Sari Holopainen for preparing the maps and Thorsten Balsby for fitting the test for a tipping point in the time series on nest densities.

Supplementary material

300_2017_2235_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (43 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 42 kb)

References

  1. Anthony MR, Flint PL, Sedinger JS (1991) Arctic fox control improves nest success of black brant. Wildl Soc Bull 19:176–184Google Scholar
  2. Carstensen J, Weydmann A (2012) Tipping points in the Arctic: eyeballing or statistical significance? Ambio 41:34–43CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Caswell H (2001) Matrix population models. Construction, analysis, and interpretation. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  4. Dau CP, Kistchinski SA (1977) Seasonal movements and distribution of the spectacled eider. Wildfowl 28:65–75Google Scholar
  5. Ely CR, Dau CP, Babcock CA (1994) Decline in a population of Spectacled Eiders nesting on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. Northwest Nat 75:81–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fischer JB, Stehn RA (2013) Nest population size and potential production of geese and spectacled eiders on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska, 1985–2012. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management, AnchorageGoogle Scholar
  7. Flint PL, Grand JB, Petersen MR, Rockwell RF (2016) Effects of lead exposure, environmental conditions, and metapopulation processes on population dynamics of Spectacled Eiders. N Am Fauna 81:1–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grand JB (1993) Standard operating procedures for spectacled eider field work. Unpublished report. USFWS, Anchorage, AlaskaGoogle Scholar
  9. Hanssen SA, Moe B, Bårdsen B-J, Hanssen F, Gabrielsen GW (2013) A natural antipredation experiment: predator control and reduced sea ice increases colony size in a long-lived duck. Ecol Evol 3:3554–3564CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Hodges JI, Eldridge WD (2001) Aerial surveys of eiders and other waterbirds on the eastern Arctic coast of Russia. Wildfowl 52:127–142Google Scholar
  11. Kistchinski AA, Flint VE (1974) On the biology of the Spectacled Eider. Wildfowl 25:5–15Google Scholar
  12. Kondratiev AV, Zadorina LV (1992) Comparative ecology of king eider Somateria spectabilis and spectacled eider S. fischeri in Chaun tundra. Zool J 71(1):99–108 [In Russian with English summary] Google Scholar
  13. Krechmar AV, Kondratiev AV (2006) Anseriformes of Northeast Asia. North-Eastern Scientific Centre, Far-Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Magadan [In Russian with English summary] Google Scholar
  14. Legendre S, Clobert J (1995) ULM, a software for conservation and evolutionary biologists. J Appl Stat 22:817–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pearce JM, Esler D, Degtyarev AG (1998) Nesting ecology of spectacled eiders on the Indigirka River Delta, Russia. Wildfowl 49:110–123Google Scholar
  16. Petersen MR, Douglas DC (2004) Winter ecology of Spectacled Eiders: environmental characteristic and population changes. Condor 106:79–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Petersen MR, Larned WW, Douglas DC (1999) At-sea distribution of Spectacled Eiders: a 120-year-old mystery resolved. Auk 116:1009–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Petersen MR, Grand JB, Dau CP (2000) Spectacled Eider (Somateria fischeri). No. 547. In Poole A, Gill F (eds) The Birds of North America, Inc., PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  19. Solovyeva DV (2015) The eiders: comparisons between species. In: Waltho CM, Coulson JC (eds) The Common Eider. T and AD Poyser, London, pp 276–305Google Scholar
  20. Solovyeva DV, Zelenskaya LA (2016) Changes in the species composition and number of gulls in tundra colonies in the western Chukotka over the last 40 years. Biol Bull 43(8):844–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Solovyeva DV, Kokhanova VY, Gabrielson M, Christie KS (2017) Testing for geographic variation in survival of Spectacled Eider (Somateria fischeri) populations in Chukotka, Russia and the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. Arctic 70(3):287–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stehn RA, Dau CP, Conant B, Butler WI Jr (1993) Decline of Spectacled Eiders nesting in Western Alaska. Arctic 46:264–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. US Fish and Wildlife Service (1993) Final rule to list the spectacled eider as threatened. Fed Reg 58:27474–27480Google Scholar
  24. Weller MW (1956) A simple field candler for waterfowl eggs. J Wildl Manag 20:111–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Westerskov K (1950) Methods for determining the age of game bird eggs. J Wildl Manag 14:56–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diana V. Solovyeva
    • 1
  • Sergey L. Vartanyan
    • 2
  • Morten Frederiksen
    • 3
  • Anthony D. Fox
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of Biological Problems of the North, Far East BranchRussian Academy of SciencesMagadanRussia
  2. 2.N.A. Shilo North-East Interdisciplinary Scientific Research Institute, Far East BranchRussian Academy of SciencesMagadanRussia
  3. 3.Department of BioscienceAarhus UniversityRoskildeDenmark
  4. 4.Department of BioscienceAarhus UniversityRøndeDenmark

Personalised recommendations